4.  The applicant was born in 1935 and lives in Harmstorf, Germany.
5.  The applicant and Mrs W-L (born in 1965) married in May 1994. Their son P. was born on 30 November 1994. The applicant also adopted Mrs W-L’s son J. M., who had been born on 19 April 1991. Since the spouses’ separation in May 1997 both children have lived with Mrs W-L. The applicant then entered into a relationship with another woman, Ms N. They had a daughter (A.) born in 1998.
6.  On 13 January 1998 the applicant filed a divorce petition with the Winsen (Luhe) District Court. By submissions dated 15 January 1998 he requested sole custody of the two children J. M. and P. On 27 February 1998 his wife, Mrs W-L, requested sole custody of their children.
7.  In March and April 1998 the District Court (Judge R.) requested the parties and their insurers to submit all information necessary for the adjustment of the parties’ pension rights (Versorgungsausgleich). The information requested reached the court by July 1998.
8.  On 14 September 1998 the Harburg Youth Office submitted a report. It argued that in view of their continual quarrels Mrs W-L and the applicant were unable to exercise custody of their children jointly.
9.  On 18 September 1998 the District Court held a hearing. The parties subsequently submitted their observations concerning Mrs W-L’s claim for maintenance, which she had lodged only at the hearing.
10.  In two notes for the records dated 14 January and 16 March 1999 the District Court judge stated that in view of his increased caseload, he could not currently take the present proceedings further.
11.  On 7 April 1999 the Harburg Youth Office confirmed that it was impossible for the parties to agree on issues concerning their children and urged the court to decide speedily.
12.  On 17 May 1999 and on 21 June 1999 the Winsen (Luhe) District Court refused requests made by the applicant, inter alia, on 1 June 1999 by reference to Article 623 § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (see paragraph 48 below) to separate the divorce proceedings from the proceedings concerning ancillary matters (Folgesachen), in particular custody and maintenance, in order to decide on his divorce beforehand. It found that the legal requirements to do so laid down in Article 628 of the Code of Civil Procedure (see paragraph 49 below) had not been met. There had not been an extraordinary delay in the divorce proceedings. This was, as a rule, only the case when proceedings had been pending for more than two years. Moreover, the applicant was not suffering undue hardship as a result of the fact that the decision on the divorce and on all ancillary matters would be given at the same time.
13.  On 28 June 1999 the applicant refused to return the children to their mother following the exercise of his right of contact and absconded with them.
14.  By an interim order of 20 July 1999 the District Court, having held a hearing in the presence of the parties on 16 July 1999 concerning the applicant’s divorce petition and all ancillary matters, awarded Mrs W-L sole custody of J. M. and P. and ordered the applicant to return the children immediately to her. The applicant had been asked by the court to bring the children along to the hearing, but had not done so.
15.  On 27 August 1999 the court cancelled the hearing scheduled for that day to pronounce its judgment and fixed another hearing instead, arguing that in view of recent events both children would have to be heard again on the question of custody.
16.  On 5 October 1999 the applicant lodged a disciplinary complaint and a motion for bias against District Court Judge R., arguing that he had delayed the proceedings and had proved to be biased in the hearing on 16 July 1999 as he had reprimanded him for not returning the children to their mother.
17.  On 4 November 1999 the Celle Court of Appeal allowed the applicant’s complaint of bias, referring to Judge R.’s submissions dated 13 October 1999. The latter had stated that following the applicant’s unfounded accusations, he had no longer felt able to conduct the proceedings in an impartial manner. By a decision of the same day and following an exchange of observations between the parties, the court also dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the District Court’s decision awarding sole custody to Mrs W-L by way of an interim injunction and the order that he return the children.
18.  The applicant returned the children to their mother on 11 November 1999.
b.  The second phase of the proceedings (Judge D.)
19.  By submissions dated 6 December 1999 the applicant requested the court to expedite the proceedings.
20.  On 22 March 2000 District Court Judge D., who had been assigned the case, held a hearing (fixed on 7 February 2000) on a request by the applicant for rectification of the record of the hearing on 16 July 1999. He decided on 19 April 2000 that only Judge R. had authority to change the minutes.
21.  On 11 May 2000 the applicant requested the court, inter alia, to separate the divorce proceedings from the proceedings concerning the ancillary matters. He later withdrew his request to separate the proceedings.
22.  On 16 October 2000 the District Court, having held a further hearing on the question whether the minutes of the hearing of 16 July 1999 should be rectified, decided that it did not have jurisdiction to do so.
23.  On 28 December 2000 the District Court ordered the applicant to submit additional information on his income. The applicant sent the requested documents to the court on 22 February 2001.
24.  On 5 April 2001 the applicant requested the District Court also to apportion the increase in the spouses’ assets during their marriage (Zugewinnausgleich) in the course of the divorce proceedings.
25.  On 3 May 2001 the applicant lodged a complaint of failure to act (Untätigkeitsbeschwerde) with the Celle Court of Appeal, which was followed up by additional reasons on 16 May 2001.
26.  On 12 July 2001 the Celle Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s complaint of failure to act as inadmissible, as no appeal lay to it. An extraordinary appeal might lie in cases in which a court failed to expedite the proceedings in a manner which amounted to a denial of justice. The court conceded that the divorce proceedings had been dealt with slowly since December 1999 and have only been expedited by the District Court’s decision of 28 December 2000. However, it was no longer necessary to decide whether proceeding in this manner amounted to total inactivity. The District Court had fixed a date for a hearing on 15 August 2001 in the meantime and the applicant had withdrawn his request to separate the divorce proceedings from the proceedings on the ancillary matters. The requirements for a complaint of failure to act were thus no longer met.
27.  On 15 August 2001 the District Court held a hearing on the applicant’s claim for apportionment of the increase in the spouses’ assets during their marriage and his renewed request to separate the divorce proceedings from the ancillary matters.
28.  On 7 September 2001 the District Court delivered a partial judgment on the applicant’s request for apportionment of the increase in the spouses’ assets during their marriage, in which it ordered Mrs W-L to inform the applicant of what assets she owned in February 1998.
29.  On 23 October 2001 the District Court refused the applicant’s request of 9 August 2001, which he had based both on Article 628 and on Article 623 § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to separate the divorce proceedings from the ancillary matters. The applicant had argued that he wanted to obtain his divorce beforehand in order to be able to remarry and to provide financial security for his new family. The court, relying on Article 628 of the Code of Civil Procedure, found that the refusal to separate the proceedings had delayed the decision on the divorce petition. This did not, however, cause undue hardship to the applicant, as he had caused the delays. By lodging an unfounded criminal and disciplinary complaint against Judge R. he had caused the latter to consider himself biased. Following the change of judges, he had pursued his unfounded requests for rectification of the record. He had then applied for apportionment of the increase in the spouses’ assets during the marriage, which had further prolonged the proceedings for an unspecified period of time.
30.  By submissions dated 26 October 2001 the applicant lodged an appeal against the partial judgment of 7 September 2001, which he withdrew on 27 November 2001.
31.  On 11 January 2002 the Celle Court of Appeal dismissed as inadmissible an extraordinary appeal by the applicant (außerordentliche Beschwerde) lodged on 16 December 2001 against the District Court’s decision dated 23 October 2001, as no appeal lay against the District Court’s decision. Even assuming that such an appeal lay against the decision, it would be ill-founded.
c.  The third phase of the proceedings (Judges Ro. and E.)
32.  Between April and June 2002 the case was assigned to Judge Ro., who noted in April 2002 that due to the court’s backlog, he was not currently in a position to further the proceedings. From July 2002 onwards the case was assigned to Judge E.
33.  On 27 October 2002 the applicant lodged another complaint with the Celle Court of Appeal that the District Court had failed to act. The Celle Court of Appeal subsequently declared the applicant’s complaint to be without object as the District Court had fixed a date for a hearing in the meantime.
34.  On 12 December 2002 District Court Judge E. informed the applicant that, in view of the court’s backlog, delays in dealing with the voluminous file were inevitable.
35.  On 2 January 2003 the applicant amended his action; Mrs W-L subsequently replied in writing.
36.  On 20 March 2003 the District Court heard J. M.
37.  On 18 and 23 April and 26 May 2003 the applicant made submissions concerning the custody of the two children.
38.  On 30 April 2003 the District Court held a further hearing on the divorce petition, custody, and the apportionment of the increase in the spouses’ assets during their marriage, as well as maintenance.
39.  On 15 May 2003 the District Court heard P.
40.  By judgment of 8 July 2003, the Winsen (Luhe) District Court granted the parties’ divorce and awarded Mrs W-L sole custody of J. M. and P. This guaranteed them continuity and was in their best interests, given that the children had been living with their mother for the past six years and had built up a stable social environment at their present place of residence. The District Court further decided on the adjustment of the divorced couple’s pension rights and on the maintenance the applicant was to pay Mrs W-L and their two children and fixed the amount of money Mrs W-L was to pay the applicant to apportion the increase in the spouses’ assets during their marriage.
41.  On 11 August 2003 the applicant appealed against the District Court’s judgment as regards custody, maintenance and the adjustment of the divorced couple’s pension rights. He submitted detailed reasons for his appeal on 17 October 2003.
42.  By a decision of 27 January 2004 the Celle Court of Appeal, having held a hearing on 13 January 2004, dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the District Court’s judgment. Endorsing the reasons given by the District Court, it found, in particular, that awarding sole custody of J. M. and P. to Mrs W-L was in the children’s best interest.
43.  On 1 March 2004 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Federal Constitutional Court against the judgment of the Winsen (Luhe) District Court dated 8 July 2003 and the decision of the Celle Court of Appeal dated 27 January 2004.
44.  On 21 April 2005 the Federal Constitutional Court declined to consider the applicant’s constitutional complaint (file no. 1 BvR 510/04). It found, in particular, that the applicant’s complaint about the length of the proceedings was inadmissible. Given that the proceedings before the family courts had been terminated, the applicant no longer had a legal interest in a decision by the Constitutional Court.
45.  The decision was served on the applicant’s counsel on 9 May 2005.